Slashdot Mirror

- an entire book on the subject

And is the book any good? I don't want to bother with it, if it's going to be a waste of my time. Glancing through reviews of the book, it doesn't sound that impressive. A favorable review has this as the bold claim, Exxon Mobile spending millions, but not a lot of millions to protect its business.

The fossil fuel industry, who have poured millions of dollars into PR campaigns to confuse the public. Over 8 years, the most profitable company in history, Exxon Mobil, gave $16 million to think tanks that deny global warming science. Fossil fuel companies also give millions of dollars to politicians such as Joe Barton and James Inhofe, who vehemently oppose climate action.

- Greenpeace, for whatever their word is worth, claiming that the Koch brothers have donated over $61 million to the cause of denying global warming.

Doing that google thing, I see that $61 million is a mere six years funding of the US branch of Greenpeace. The World Wildlife Fund has $180 million in funding last year of which $44 million came from government sources. No anti-AGW group has that sort of funding.

So what we have is a "well-funded" campaign that is vastly outspent just by government contributions to a single non-profit. Ever wonder why the "climate denialists" get any traction at all? It's not the money they're spending. That's for sure.

This should be old news to well...everyone. They also have no shortage of links to domestic terrorist groups, also shown on Bullshit! but there's also a pile of links on it available.

Greenpeace was one

Greenpeace's total budget is around10 million per year. How is it that they can influence the overwhelming majority of climate research?

If climate science is primarily agenda driven, and climate science is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW there must be a group out there that profits from the fabrication of data for the AGW hypothesis and has more money than the oil industry. I don't see any candidates.

The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.

Yes, this would prompt the oil industry to manufacture controversy allowing it to continue polluting. But that's only one side of the story.

Who benefits by the fabrication of AGW data? If no one benefits, then how do you square your claim that climate science is primarily agenda driven with the fact that climate science is overwhelmingly in agreement with the AGW hypothesis?

I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that?

NASA does a considerable amount of research into the radiation of energy by planetary bodies. This research is diretly related to the AGW argument. Those models are developed and used by people like James Hansen to predict what will happen to the energy our planet absorbs, given the composition of the atmosphere. If you are correct, and all of this is bunk science driven by an agenda, then NASA must have been coopted by some special interest group. Is that your claim?

HSUS are just as activist, as an organization, as PETA. http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states

"Activist" hasn't meant anything positive in a long time, ever since the basic philosophy of too many activist groups became "We'll make your lives miserable until you give in and do what WE want you to do." Thanks to groups like ALF/ELF and the money-making/laundering machines behind many others (see http://www.activistcash.com/ ), "activist" has almost become synonymous with "domestic terrorist".

It's the same unfortunate regression of meaning that "hacker" suffers from, for the same reasons -- too many black hats among the white hats.

First hit on google searching for "elf peta" http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/21-people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals/ Quite a rap sheet. Enjoy.

Vandalism of what amounts to a public resource for political ends is either civil disobedience or domestic terrorism. If it's the latter, they deserve prison time. If it's the former, they should demand to go to jail and wear their prison garb as a badge of honor. As long as the individuals who did this stay in hiding they are nothing but cowards.

Ah, but if the 'leaders' of these 'ecowarriors' go to jail, who will lead the 'troops'? You send the 'troops' to jail, but keep the 'leaders' free to inspire more and more violent actions in the name of ELF, etc.

ELF, btw, is 'descended' from an outfit called Earth First!, who include people like convicted arsonist Rod Coronado as sterling examples of the 'best' that they offer. No wonder PETA likes nutjobs like him, they make PETA look 'moderate'.

I was talking with an ecofreak once who told me that the 'carrying capacity' of Earth for humans is on the order of 500 million tops. So, with about 7 billion people on the planet at the moment, seems 13 of 14 need to die & join the compost heap. I'd asked the ecofreak if he was volunteering to be one of the first into the compost heap. He told me 'Of course not, they need me to show them the way'. Seems I hear similar things from any of the econutters out there; they're the only ones who can save us from ourselves as long as we do what they say.

I say, compost 'em first.

As a pro dog trainer from way back, I agree -- dogs and cats are livestock, which is to say, property. And the fact that our society has started seeing them as furry children is what will ultimately destroy our ability to own pets, regardless of how any individual views our special relationship with those pets (whatever species that may be in a given culture).

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
and so on... all working to promote the view that dogs and cats are "fur children" rather than property (ie. livestock) -- a viewpoint which will ultimately lead to a complete *prohibition* of pet ownership.

So, yes -- for the future of our dogs and cats, it is imperative that we not forget that they are indeed a specialized form of livestock.

As a pro dog trainer from way back, I agree -- dogs and cats are livestock, which is to say, property. And the fact that our society has started seeing them as furry children is what will ultimately destroy our ability to own pets, regardless of how any individual views our special relationship with those pets (whatever species that may be in a given culture).

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21
and so on... all working to promote the view that dogs and cats are "fur children" rather than property (ie. livestock) -- a viewpoint which will ultimately lead to a complete *prohibition* of pet ownership.

So, yes -- for the future of our dogs and cats, it is imperative that we not forget that they are indeed a specialized form of livestock.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=131 concludes with this quote:

====
Writing in Canada's National Post in October 2001, [Greenpeace founder] Patrick Moore offered the following critique: "I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates... Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
====

And sourcewatch.org in turn is just a front for the Center of Media and Democracy (CMD) which serves as a sham independent organisation run by a leftist environmental activist. http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/12

You forget that PETA is an extremist group. They're no different than, say, Iran, who have no direct terrorist ties, but they have some pretty damn questionable connections.

I agree with you -- Greenpeace today is nothing but a vigilante extortion business (and so are nearly all the once-useful activist groups). See http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131

Minus the environmentalist rhetoric, they'd be recognised as the thugs they are, little different from any other protection racket.

According to http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131, $360 MILLION dollars does not suffice -- they still want more donations. So I'd guess their extortion fee to Apple would be in the half a billion range.

(No, this *isn't* meant as a joke, sad to say.)

Suggested reading:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/131

A couple of relevant quotes from the cited page (emphasis mine):

Forbes magazine once described it as "a skillfully managed business" with full command of "the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation." But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its "non-profit" status and its U.S. tax exemption.

and

...its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.

Draw your own conclusions.

The scandal was generated by HSUS, who didn't see fit to report anything AT THE TIME, but waited several months -- until they could make political hay with it. Tell me, was that for the benefit of the cows and the humans who eat them, or for the benefit of HSUS's coffers?? see http://www.activistcash.com/news_detail.cfm?hid=3571 and http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3565 for starters.

Second, having seen a "vicious dog" video that was COMPLETELY STAGED (including letting a little kid get bitten -- this was filmed in some third-world country where street kids are a dime a dozen) I have very small faith in the authenticity of such videos... particularly one that's been held back for several months, no doubt to be "edited for television".

I grew up in cattle country, and I never once saw ANY rancher or feedlot (or anyone else for that matter) abuse livestock. Tell me, do you really believe that some DO beat cattle just for the sheer fun of it?? And do you really think a 1500 pound animal equipped with a short temper is going to just meekly put up with it?? Because that's what your response implies. (I'd like to see someone TRY to abuse a dairy bull... let alone live to tell about it!)

See, that's ALWAYS the problem with the AR arguments. Examples of substandard animal care are in fact extremely rare, but that's not how they tell it -- rather, it's always "some are good guys, but many are not" -- despite being able to produce only isolated incidents. Yeah, there are a few corner cases, but corner cases make bad law and worse regulations, and wind up penalizing the good guys out of business.

Of course, the ARs see no problem with this -- SINCE THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL IS THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL ANIMAL USE.

That includes meat, milk, eggs (their Prop 2 did manage to effectively ban egg production in California, but if you follow the money, I'm sure it will lead to Chinese and Phillipino egg exporters), leather, research, many plastics, AND PETS.

Thought processes like yours are wrong on so many levels, I almost don't know where to start. But here's a stab at it:

Mistreated, stressed, unhappy animals don't produce effectively. REGARDLESS OF SCALE, farmers and ranchers go to considerable lengths to ensure that livestock lead stress-free lives, because that's simple economics: stress reduces sale weight, and meat animals are sold by the pound. As a result, there is NO ONE more concerned about their animals' well-being than the livestock producers and slaughterhouses. And we've come a long way in understanding animals' needs, compared to any prior era.

However, those needs DON'T include being the beloved Flopsys and Bambis that the ARs want us to view them as.

And if you think there is more "mistreatment" now than in the past, you clearly know nothing about the history of meat production, but have drunk the "animal rights" koolaid, fake sweeteners and all. I suggest starting with a visit to http://www.activistcash.com/ -- check out any of the AR groups. Follow the money. It's not about animal welfare at all; it's about enriching themselves while spewing hatred for people.

People always bring up the example of the downer cow moved via forklift. Oooh, cruel. Well, explain to me how YOU would move 1200 pounds of dead weight, or worse yet 1200 pounds of thrashing weight that can kill you with a single kick??

And if you think the bucolic picture of a perfect farm with 6 cows and 20 chickens can feed America, let alone the world, you have no idea of the scale of food production. There are MILLIONS of cattle in the system at any given moment, and when you have that sort of numbers, there will always be a few that get sick or go down AFTER getting into the system. There is no way to prevent this, any more than I can prevent you from coming down with something after you've gone to work this morning.

As to how much meat people eat, that's also simple economics: hunting societies have always had access to daily meat; crop farming societies might not, because of the added expense of pasturage and fodder and the fact that you can't keep livestock and crops together (the former will cheerfully eat the latter). For people outside of either economy (ie. city folk), it's a matter of whether or not they can afford it, not whether they NEED it.

Meat is actually cheaper protein in the long run, compared to the same amount and quality (ie. amino acid balance) of protein from plant sources, but is PERCEIVED as more expensive by people with a "poor mentality" because it costs more by the pound. Poor and uneducated people don't stop to figure out the cost per gram for the daily nutritional requirment of correctly-balanced amino acids, let alone how many extra (wasted in the digestive process, or go to fat) calories they consume in the two pounds or so of plant matter they need for the purpose, while trying to get the same 60 grams of *balanced* amino acids that they'd get from a mere 3 ounces of meat.

Not only that, but grasslands that CANNOT SUPPORT CROPS can very efficiently produce meat protein. We can't eat or convert that grass to usable protein -- but cows can. Do you propose that we forego 60% of our food production acreage (the 2/3rds of the land mass that isn't tillable) because we stop converting grass to meat? Remember, that grassland WON'T produce anything else -- it either lacks sufficient water or can't be effectively tilled, or both.

And as urban sprawl continues to pave over the crop-productive bottomlands (as much as *half* the arable land is already gone in some states), the meat-production capacity of those untillable grasslands will become that much more important to our food supply.

Let's look at this in regards to one of their lecturers

or this in regards to their ties to the ALF and ELF and comments made by PETA employees.

or watch the Bullshit episode on PETA and then try and rebut all they say in that. (And yes, I know the Bullshit shows are horrendously one sided, and when they come down on the other side of a topic I believe in it shits me to tears... but they make some fine points in this episode)

If all PETA did was raise awareness of animal rights, lobby for their fair treatment etc. then I would support them, but they DO put animals above people in far too many cases, and somehow forget that treating humans worse than they wish animals to be treated sends the wrong message.

here and click on the drop down at the top... They're a bunch of crazies, that much is undeniable. While I agree with some of their messages I disagree with their methods but, meh, I'm just opinionated and think we should at least try to work within the realms of lawful and honest.

Animal rights nuts don't love animals. They HATE HUMANS. Don't think so? read these quotes from PETA members and directors: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/21

Also witness that PETA's idea of "ethical treatment" means that they kill 97% of the pets they collect (having often lied to the former owner about the animal's intended fate), because in the words of Ingrid Newkirk, dogs and cats are "better off dead" than living "enslaved" as a companion to humans. See http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ for the whole story. -- By contrast, the average city shelter kills about 30%.

As to PETA's financials, read this:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/21

Animal rights nuts don't love animals. They HATE HUMANS. Don't think so? read these quotes from PETA members and directors: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/21

Also witness that PETA's idea of "ethical treatment" means that they kill 97% of the pets they collect (having often lied to the former owner about the animal's intended fate), because in the words of Ingrid Newkirk, dogs and cats are "better off dead" than living "enslaved" as a companion to humans. See http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ for the whole story. -- By contrast, the average city shelter kills about 30%.

As to PETA's financials, read this:
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/21

A quick report on Center for Food Safety: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/11 I have little doubt that Monsanto may be up to some business practices that are less than ethical, but groups that like to fear monger about GM crops annoy me.

I think they've got enough propaganda films of their own to watch.
What I find difficult to understand (well, actually, not really anymore) is how Americans don't
recognize propaganda when they see it.
Especially the slashdot crowd. You figure the slashdot crowd would be educated enough to tell the difference.
Unless science teachers of today aren't really teaching science anymore and just propaganda.

You fail to mention that only 29% said SDI was positive (source). If 71% of respondents don't think your massively expensive program (which, by the way, had the potential to employ many of the people asked in the poll) has positive value, I'd say that could be described as "profound and pervasive skepticism". I do, however, agree that the poll is biased. You could have said it in your own words rather than cut and pasting it from some website somewhere.

From http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/347
============

Overview
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "We're not a protest organization, we're a policing organization," Paul Watson has said of his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). A pirate organization is more like it. Sporting the skull and crossbones, his black or battleship-gray ships sail menacingly through the waves. They are painted with the names of the boats Watson has rammed and sunk.

The ships are fitted with water cannons, a concrete-filled bow made for ramming, and an attachment dubbed the "can opener" that can tear open a boat's hull. In his book Earth Warrior, David Morris writes that Watson wears a long bowie knife at his side and carries AK-47s on board. He blasts Richard Wagner's rousing "Ride of the Valkyries" to herald his arrival and terrify his victims.

SSCS's mission is to stop fishing of which it disapproves. Its preferred methods? Ramming and sinking fishing ships, throwing butyric acid on their decks, and firing machine guns. Watson argues that United Nations resolutions authorize him to commit violent acts. But he regularly interferes with fisherman and hunters who are committing no crime. He serves as judge, jury, and executioner -- while enjoying the same tax-exempt status as universities and churches.

Some of the animal-rights movement's most notorious terrorists got their start with SSCS. One of them, convicted arsonist Rodney Coronado, had Watson's approval to plan and execute an attack on Iceland's whaling industry. He and a colleague sank two of the fleet's four ships and destroyed a processing facility.

The Birth of Violence

SSCS is run with an iron fist by its founder, "Captain" Paul Watson. "When this ship becomes a democracy," he likes to say to his crew, "you'll be the first to know." Watson is a dyslexic who "progressed from deckhand to able seaman without knowing how to tie a knot" with the Canadian Coast Guard and Norwegian and Swedish merchant marines.

In Vancouver, Watson joined a group of anti-war activists who attempted to forcibly shut down American nuclear tests. These radicals branched out into environmental activism and became Greenpeace, of which Watson was a founder. But Watson's violent tactics became too much for Greenpeace, which kicked him out in 1977, after he assaulted seal hunters. Watson now assails his old comrades for being too wimpy, calling Greenpeace "the Avon ladies of the environmental movement."

Soon after Watson's eviction from Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and its ship-ramming philosophy were born. SSCS's band of pirates have disrupted the legal Canadian seal hunt, attacked whaling ships and fishing boats using driftnets, and taken credit for spiking (inserting large nails into) thousands of trees. The group has sunk at least ten ships in Iceland, Norway, Spain, Portugal, South Africa, and the Canary Islands. Watson has even sunk his own ships rather than let the authorities take them. And he has spent time in the jails of Canada and the Netherlands. "Any whaling ship on the ocean is a target for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society," he has said.

Watson's love for marine life doesn't stop him from eating fish. "Paul, who likes hamburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches equally, interprets veganism as a form of philosophical lunacy," David Morris writes in Earth Warrior. Morris's book details often-hilarious disputes between Watson and the vegan crewmembers. One standoff ensued when Watson ordered the vegans to retrieve a driftnet left by an escaped fishing vessel. The crew took an agonizingly long time, trying to free every squid caught in the net, about which Watson couldn't care less. He didn't even mind profiting from the work of the ship he threatened -- Morris reports that he later sent his chef over to the net to "requisition a few squid for dinner."

On the Fringe

Paul Watson has used his aggres

One suspects they'd consider Apple more "green" should Apple provide them with an infusion of cash.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financial s.cfm/oid/131

You might want to read http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/131

Be sure to take note of the connections mentioned in the "motivations" section.

=======

"I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth."
-- Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, writing in Canada's National Post

Except the Union of Concerned Scientists are not scientists. They are a far-left political activist group.

HSUS may have an extreamly large number of people that donate a few bucks a year to it, but its never been able to get its membership to follow its lead on these things.

The truth is that most of those that donate to HSUS don't even understand that they are giving $$ to a national org and not the local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it's not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere.

Good luck getting this membership to follow a ban they call for on anything.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/136

Well, Mr. I-can-only-think-in-terms-of-clichés, try this on for size:

What if you're an environmentalist and your "business" is scaring people. And scaring up funding and donations while your at it?

Sorry to burst your bubble, Goldilocks.

The past has proven time and time again that reports provided by people backed by certain corporations, such as Cigarrette Manufacturers, Oil Firms and both the RIAA and MPAA are filled with half-truths, straight lies, clear misrepresentations of data (once the data is brought out into the public space), as well as a number of other "Dirty Pool" tactics.

There are plenty of organizations whose positions need watching. As you say, "The past has proven time and time again that reports provided by people backed by certain ...."

Adbusters, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Sierra Club, and a cast of thousands.

And lets not forget the violent:

Animal Liberation Front, Earth First!, Earth Liberation Front

Oh ... almost forgot ... something that details how shady and hypocritical UCS is better than I can. Pay attention to the part about how UCS takes polls and uses the results ... I like that part the most. Very shady in my opinion.

And why the rant on global warming ... I never even mentioned it in my post. One might think you have a hidden agenda just like UCS with irrelevant postings like that.

Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4458

Other frontgroups include; http://www.handsoff.org/ http://www.minimumwage.com/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.nannyculture.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.responsibledrinker.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.firstjobs.org/ http://www.petapetition.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.obesityscam.com/ http://www.rottenacorn.com/ http://www.madcowscare.com/
http://www.livingwage.com/

Check out http://www.prwatch.org/node/4458

Other frontgroups include; http://www.handsoff.org/ http://www.minimumwage.com/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.epionline.org/ http://www.abionline.org/ http://www.physicianscam.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.nannyculture.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.cspiscam.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.bacdebate.com/ http://www.maddatgm.com/ http://www.responsibledrinker.com/ http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.firstjobs.org/ http://www.petapetition.com/ http://www.bermanco.com/ http://www.obesityscam.com/ http://www.rottenacorn.com/ http://www.madcowscare.com/
http://www.livingwage.com/

Comment was a dig at PeTA. PeTA hates humans.
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/

If you want to be an animal rights activist, there is the legitimate organization called the ASPCA http://www.aspca.org/
They have been around for over 130 years.

PeTA is a bunch of wackjob veggie hippies that hates humans and are considered terrorists.
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/c a_arson_terrorist(8-7-03).htm/
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/21/

I disagree that overgeneralizations are a precursor to racism. Overgeneralizations are a useful way for the human brain to avoid exploding with information. And their a way for you to improve your interpersonal skills. More on this in a minute though.

People these days are really sensitive about race. Overly sensitive. The problem isn't racism. The problem is intolerance and fanaticism. Any form of intolerance (be it based on race, religion (or lack thereof), color, creed, sexual preference, or differing viewpoints) is bad. Combine that with fanaticism, and you have some really scary people.

Now why did I say that overgeneralizations can be a good thing? Because they make it easier for you to relate to someone whom you've just met, or for you to appropriately modify your behavior for a given situation. As an example, you meet someone who is dressed like a priest. You might avoid topics like the recent incidents of priest pedophilia, or your particular views on religion. At least until you get to know that person.

The important thing is to realize is that people can be (and generally are) deeper than the one most immediately recognizable aspect of themselves, whether that aspect is their race, their beauty (or their ugliness), their religion or anything else about them. Likewise, it's important not to allow a single character trait to define who your are.

See here.

Who is behind "The Center for Media & Democracy"?

Don't get me wrong, it does look like Activist Cash is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either. :P

...even though:

1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;

2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization throughout its history, originally organized to protest the Vietnam war, and with less than 10% of its membership actually from the scientific community[1];

3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;

To quote the submitter: "I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."

But since it's an organization with a decidedly and unabashedly liberal political agenda, I guess they must be telling the truth 100%, whereas anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns. Because, you know, there's no balance or anything in environmentalism. I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?

[1], more: In 1969, forty-eight professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology formed the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to protest America's involvement in the Vietnam War. The group conducted a highly publicized strike in March 1969, that included such speakers as leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky, and Eric Mann of the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society. (SDS was the terrorist organization responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building in 1971.) The Union used the strike as a forum to declare that "misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind." This philosophy was starkly articulated by key organizer, Jonathan Kabat: ""You've got to say, 'No, we want capitalism to come to an end."

The Union's trendy radicalism launched it into money, power and influence. A permanent office was opened in Cambridge, and UCS grew into a multimillion dollar activist organization. Three of its original founders still sit on the board: James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering (MIT); Kurt Gottfried, Chairman of the Physics Department at Cornell University; and Victor Weisskopf, Professor Emeritus of Physics (MIT). The Board of Directors of this organization also includes the standard litany of corporate America special interests, liberal nonprofit foundations, and former government agency employees.

Political activism in UCS's early years was confined primarily to opposing nuclear power and the military defense establishment. Emphasis later shifted to include all energy policy issues and global warming. In 1989, the Union commissioned Republican pollster Vince Breglio of Research/Strategy/Management to conduct a survey on global warming and environmental protection. Breglio found that "the environment is becoming a political issue with some bite." This poll convinced the group to change its focus. In 1990, UCS brought together forty-nine Nobel laureates, and 700 members of the U.S. Academy of Scientists to sign an appeal for action against global warming. The event was highly publicized and called for tougher fuel efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles, centralized government control of energy issues and the continued deactivation of America's nuclear power generating industry. That same year, however, 425 scientists and intellectual leaders presented another document to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio. Entitled The Heidelberg Appeal, it condemned UCS's document as "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Today, more than 2,700 signatories, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners, from 102 countries have signed The Heidelberg Appeal.

One biased resource (rightwing) is "Activist Cash":
http://www.activistcash.com/

If wish to check things out from a slightly "leftwing" bias, you might check out "SourceWatch" (formerly "Disinfopedia"):

http://www.sourcewatch.org/

You might also want to check out general resources like "Wikipedia":

http://en.wikipedia.org

Why, if we really, really want software patents to fail, don't we actually do something direct? I mean, terrorist organisations like Earth First get paid by outwardly respectible organisations like Greenpeace to cause trouble, so why don't we do em? I'm sure we could raise some bucks to get a nutter to burn down the house of a pro-software patent MEP or to harass the employees of companies that are pro-software patent, or to publish a hitlist for the next Unabomber.

** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.

really? no proof given though, huh?

** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.

Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?

Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.

That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.

Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.

Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.

UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.

The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).

I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.

Note the rating: radical left.

Also, check out:

activist cash for more info.

JunkScience.com said of these guys: "It's more like the Union of Concerned Lawyers."

This guys are FAR from independent.